SUKUMAR WELDING WORKS Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner made an application under section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") before the committee for consideration of the merits of the assessment made on the petitioner. The assessment years relate to 2004 -05 and 2005 -06. The committee rejected the prayer by remarking as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner had preferred a petition before a Committee referring to the inspection by the Enforcement Wing on October 19, 2005 in which certain details were unearthed under D7 slips pointing out to suppression. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the assessing authority had gone ahead with the assessment making an assessment by a mere reproduction of what was there in the proposal of the Enforcement Wing officials. Hence, there was no independent application of mind to the materials and to the reply made.

(3.) GOING by the very contention that there was a deviation proposal from the assessing authority, considering the fact that the petitioner had challenged the assessment as an arbitrary one, as a super regional sits as a corrective mechanism either suo motu or on an application to correct assessments that are in violation of the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, whatever be the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, when the aggrieved assessee approaches the committee, it is but necessary, the committee bestows its attention to the issues raised by the petitioner, then pass an order considering the same giving reasons for either accepting or rejecting. In the context of the width of its power as given under the Act, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the respondent by merely expressing its agreement order. Accordingly, the order passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the petition de novo and pass orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2009 are closed.